A seismic verdict has shaken Bangladesh as former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). This landmark ruling has ignited a fierce debate, questioning whether it represents genuine justice or a calculated political vendetta. The judgment arrives with Hasina reportedly in India, immediately thrusting New Delhi into a complex diplomatic and legal quandary concerning the bilateral extradition treaty.
The ICT in Dhaka pronounced the death penalty in a case stemming from the 2024 student movement. Initially a protest against job-quota policies, these demonstrations rapidly broadened into widespread unrest targeting the Hasina administration. The ensuing violence resulted in numerous fatalities among students, protesters, and security forces, with the tribunal holding Hasina accountable.
Key charges leveled against the former premier include ordering killings, delivering inflammatory speeches that incited violence, obstructing justice, attempting to destroy evidence, and specific allegations of ordering the killing of student Abu Sayeed and involvement in the death and burning of five individuals in Chankharpul. She received the death sentence for the first two charges and a life sentence for obstruction of justice.
While Hasina has a 30-day window to appeal, a critical condition stipulates that she must be physically present in Bangladesh to do so, effectively barring an appeal from abroad. Hasina has denounced the verdict as “wrong, biased, and politically motivated,” asserting that her defense was not adequately heard and that the tribunal operates under an unelected interim government. She has expressed a willingness to present her case before the International Criminal Court.
Bangladesh’s interim government has formally requested Hasina’s extradition from India, citing the 2013 extradition treaty. However, the treaty contains clauses that allow for extradition refusal, particularly if the offense is deemed political in nature. Given Hasina’s claims of political persecution, India’s obligation to extradite is not absolute under the treaty’s provisions.
Concerns have also been raised about the impartiality of the ICT itself. Established by Hasina’s own government in 2010 to prosecute war crimes from the 1971 Liberation War, its scope was expanded by the current interim government to encompass recent events, including the student protests. With judges and prosecutors appointed by the interim administration, the tribunal’s credibility faces significant scrutiny, with some critics labeling it a “kangaroo court.”
The verdict has fueled significant unrest, with Hasina’s supporters staging protests and engaging in clashes across Bangladesh. The escalating political tension has led to fears of renewed instability within the nation. India’s response, navigating diplomatic ties, legal obligations, and regional security, will be a crucial factor in the unfolding events.